Whitney jumped ship too early

[ChinoCoug]

As I read the earlier discussion between Whitney and Indy, it became apparent that Whitney kept appealing to authority (Barry Switzer, etc) while Indy used hard data. If I were Whitney I would have 1) quoted Bronco and 2) dismissed statistical analysis altogether.

I heard Bronco say on the radio that he had some guy study out the most defensive factors on winning and losing, and found: #1 points allowed #2 takeaways. Of course I don't know WHOM Bronco hired (stat guy?). And it seems problematic to use points allowed as a causal variable when winning is by definition scoring more than you allow. But anyhow, with the reverence accorded Bronco on Cougarboard, that would've worked well.

And then there's the old debate between traditional scouting and sabermetrics. Scouts dismiss sabermetricians as geekheads who need to go out and watch a game. I'm learning sabermetrics right now, but there are certain things in sports you can't quantify. Take Jose Reyes, for example. When a scout for the Mets checked him out in the DR, he was a skinny, below-average hitter and fielder. Nothing quantifiable that indicated potential. How did he know Reyes was gonna be good? Reyes had an elastic body.

A macho "you're wrong because you don't know jack about conventional wisdom and you're a disjunctured geek" would have worked well.

[Indy Coug]

The benefit of statistical analysis is that sometimes it can be used to definitively debunk so-called conventional wisdom. Statistical analysis isn't the be-all, end-all to evaluating individual performance or potential (like 5 star Ofa and Ben Olson turning into behavioral and psychological duds), but it at least provides a more consistent benchmark than some schlub pontificating about "it".

[SoCalCoug]

I'd love to see Bronco get hold of that book (or article or whatever it is) by the statistics professor who says you should virtually always go for it on 4th down. Supposedly he's got stats saying you're better off in the long run, even if you're on your own side of the field.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'd love to see Bronco get hold of that book (or article or whatever it is) by the statistics professor who says you should virtually always go for it on 4th down. Supposedly he's got stats saying you're better off in the long run, even if you're on your own side of the field.

It's by David Romer who is an economist:

t's Fourth Down and What Does the Bellman Equation Say? A Dynamic
Programming Analysis of Football Strategy

Here's a link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=316803

This is a fairly technical paper. Unless Bronco has been exposed to dynamic programming I am not sure how much he would understand of the paper.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by pelagius

This is a fairly technical paper. Unless Bronco has been exposed to dynamic programming I am not sure how much he would understand of the paper.

Come on, we all know Bronco wrote the book on dynamic programing as it relates to football... of COURSE he understands it.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

Come on, we all know Bronco wrote the book on dynamic programing as it relates to football... of COURSE he understands it.

And his dynamic programming style is gospel centric.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

It's by David Romer who is an economist:

t's Fourth Down and What Does the Bellman Equation Say? A Dynamic
Programming Analysis of Football Strategy

Here's a link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=316803

This is a fairly technical paper. Unless Bronco has been exposed to dynamic programming I am not sure how much he would understand of the paper.

Does he conclude that due to the law of large numbers that over the very long haul it is on average better to go for it on 4th down? With relatively few scoring plays per game, with games that are usually decided by 3 scoring plays or less, is there too much variability in his "4th down success rate" parameter to take solace in knowing poor 4th down attempts in a game that you lost will somehow pay dividends over a 25 to 50 year horizon?

[Mormon Red Death]

TMQ says it best... when you are on 50-35 (maroon zone) its good strategy to go for it on 4th and 4 and less...

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Does he conclude that due to the law of large numbers that over the very long haul it is on average better to go for it on 4th down? With relatively few scoring plays per game, with games that are usually decided by 3 scoring plays or less, is there too much variability in his "4th down success rate" parameter to take solace in knowing poor 4th down attempts in a game that you lost will somehow pay dividends over a 25 to 50 year horizon?

When I first read the study, this was my thought as well. But it still convinced me you should go for it on 4th down more often than normally is done.

You incorporate this study, but you also incorporate factors such as

--will this be a high or low scoring game
--how much time left, I'm less likely to gamble later in the game or half
-- what kind of offense the other team has and what kind of defense I have, i.e. if I turn it over on downs on the 3, will the other team likely gain 30 yards before punting and destroy the field position gain or will we stop them and I'll get it back on the same side of the field

You get the picture. But I think the study should change the way we think about things.

[RockyBalboa]

A lot of times Stats mean exactly jack shit.